Skip to main content

NGT holds land owner responsible for felling of trees not accepting plea of ignorance

In Lt. Col. (Retd.) Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi v. Union of India, decided on 7-12-2017,  Applicant has stated that there has been erratic felling of the tree and construction of kaccha road in a large part of the forest area which is important wildlife corridor and frequented by wild animals including leopards from Asola Sanctuary. The above stated information is well known to the Forest Department but no timely action has been taken on their part.

National Green Tribunal held that the material defence noted in this whole scenario is that  Respondent 5 did not deny any of the stated allegations but contended that some unknown offenders were involved in the felling of trees for which a criminal complaint had also been filed and further the Forest Department was restraining him from entering his own land as they considered him to be one of the accused too.
The Court observed that by examining the legal position and the various FIR’s in the name of respondent alleging him to be one of the offenders by the Forest Department, it is difficult to accept the plea of ignorance as he had the legal duty being the owner of the stated land to ensure that no illegal activity should have been committed upon, which makes the point of who did it irrelevant and therefore the complaints filed against Respondent 5 to be continued, as the onus is totally on Respondent 5.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/12/16/ngt-holds-land-owner-responsible-felling-trees-plea-ignorance-not-material-defence/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more